Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Anti-GMO Labelers Wage Massive Disinformation Campaign in Colorado

How
much money does it take – most from outside interests – to take down an effort
to label GMO-based foods? Better perhaps, how much disinformation does it take
to alter voters’ minds to force them to subvert their own nutrition –food
choices?It turns out the answers may be
much more than we believed for the first ($9.7m vs. $330,000 for proponents), and much less for the second. The
latter since now the Denver Post has tossed its hat into the GMO labeling ring
and given a rousing endorsement to vote down Proposition 105 in its Sunday
editorial.

But
then we already knew the Denver Post – while allowing a few liberal memes – did
staunchly also wage a brief for unlimited fracking over a year ago – arguing it
was critical for the state’s economy. Can we call ‘bollocks’ on that too? I
believe so, especially after surreal gloating and smug satisfaction fairly
oozed from the paper’s pages after Jared Polis removed from the Nov.
ballotthe initiatives to give local
control of fracking to Colorado
communities.

The
image attached was taken from a flyer delivered in the mail. The flyer included
canards that have been repeated in assorted ads on TV and also by the Denver
Post in its editorial.Some of the more
prominent include:

1)
Farmers and food producers would be required to separate, repackage and re-label
ingredients from throughout the country – just for our state.

2)
Proposition 105 would cost Colorado
taxpayers millions by requiring a new state bureaucracy to enforce its Colorado-only
regulations for tens of thousands of products.

3)
Proposition is so full of exemptions it would not tell consumers which foods
are produced with GMOs.

Responses:

The
first is overblown fear mongering. Most of Colorado’s foods are locally grown as people
have become more aware of the advantages. Many places (e.g. Whole Foods)
already have GMO labeling which conforms with the law. Any residual issues are
not as huge a problem as portrayed as Vermont
has already found out, as well as Switzerland – not exactly a
backwater nation! (See my posts on it from last month). The Swiss have the
sense to use a threshold for labeling GMO which is that samples tested contain
less than 0.9 percent GMO products. We can do the same!

The
Second complaint is more hype and the regulatory body needed can be modeled again after Vermont – after
mandating their own GMO labeling law, or after Switzerland. “Enforcement” is another bugbear as
consumers will basically do the “enforcing” with their food purchase
choices.No special “police” or “code
violation” body will be needed.

As
for (3), yes, there are exemptions, because over-ambitious labeling demands
would not have gotten the signatures needed and likely invited even more
lawsuits than the ones planned. As progressives always harp on in elections: “You cannot make the perfect the enemy of the
good!”

Given
the progressives' clarion call, of course meat and dairy aren’t forced to be
labeled since the animals are only raised on GMO foods, they are not
themselves genetically re-configured animals (e.g. cows actually being
engineered from rat, skunk or vampire bat DNA). Restaurants also don’t need GMO
labeling because many (e.g. Chipotle) are already doing it and finding a
competitive edge because of it. As for Alcoholic beverages, these also need no special
GMO labels. For one thing, most everyone conscious knows it is a drug and also
the ill effects, including on the liver and brain. Whether in fact GMOs play
any role in alcoholic beverages is therefore akin to worrying about whether the
cancer sticks you’re smoking have bisphenol –A filters.

Other
objections to Proposition 105 are even more ludicrous, such as Colorado commissioner
of agriculture Don Ament arguing (Denver Post, Sept. 28) that genetic
engineering has been going on for thousands of years – actually referring to
hybridization, e.g. of cattle. In this way, many have been led to believe
voting for the Proposition is ridiculous and redundant because – hey!- those things have been with us like
forever.

But
there’s a huge difference. In hybridization, similar species can be cross-bred
because they share similar genetic traits. (Such as two types of cow being
mammals and ungulates).Hybrids can
occur naturally or they can be created by grafting and cross-pollination.

By
contrast, genetic engineering involves splicing of two distinct species (e.g.
cows and alligators, or tomatoes and mice) that would never occur naturally in
a million years – or ten million. Since the GMOs are not natural – they don’t
represent natural creatures that would have evolved, or plants, and we simply
don’t know what the health consequences might be.

We
do know there were some earlier studies, such asArpad Pusztai’s in Britain. This study processed the
results over several years and found that the rats which consumed GMO potatoes
showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development.
Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not
sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineered
food on mammals. Alas, after he tried to
publish the results he lost his job-
see:

More
recently, families have been made aware of glyphosate in these foods and how it
reduces their nutritive value and also raises the specter of Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s diseaseand non-Hodgkins
lymphoma. This will be particularly pronounced if the new Enlist DUO Weedicide
is approved for use with GMO crops, as Dr. Oz Mehmet already exposed – as well
as others, see e.g.

For Colorado's premium newspaper, The Denver Postgets many things wrong as well in its Anti-105
editorial. Thus, the issue of “cost” is again carped about despite the fact
David Byrne – former European commissioner for health and consumer protection -
declared that GMO labeling “did not result in increased costs despite the
horrifying predictions of some interests.”

The
Post also complained that some would ban GMOs which “ironically have resulted
in a large decrease in the use of insecticides etc.”

But
as Mehmet Oz observed:

-There are 1.1 billion pounds of
pesticides used per year, used on GMO crops - because those crops are designed
to survive the poisons.

70 - 170 million pounds of
additional highly toxic pesticides will be used if the FDA approves Enlist.

Oz then flatly skewered the notion that “less” toxins are being used,
and in fact the very design of GMO crops encourages the use of MORE toxins
because they are designed to survive them.As
Oz’ guest, journalist Mark Bittman also
noted:

“Yields are not up and
pesticide use is not down. So when you talk about feeding a hungry world, GMOs
have not moved us in that direction."

Do you really want the residues of 2,4 –D, the chemical used in Agent
Orange during the Vietnam War, splotched all over your food if Enlist is
approved by the multinational-compromised EPA?

The bottom line here is one of buyer choice: Do you deserve to know if
that tomato you’re purchasing is the product of the natural tomato being
spliced with mouse genes, or not?(The
aim being to increase its shelf life).Sixty four European nations already have a ban or moratorium and strict
regulation of GMO foods including labeling.

Switzerland, probably a European nation
more advanced than many:

“ funded thirty projects to investigate the
risks and benefits of GMOs. These projects concluded that there were no clear
health or environmental dangers associated with planting GMOs. However, they
also concluded that there was little economic incentive for farmers to adopt
GMOs in Switzerland.”
(Wikipedia)

Our Swiss friend
Rolf told us that the main concern of farmers in Switzerland is the accidental dispersion of GMOs
(from areas dedicated to their cultivation) to outside farms and crops – thereby
contaminating them. The worries he cites are well worth noting, but he also
averred no Swiss citizen wished to be kept in the dark over what he’s eating.

As he asked me
while we were staying in Appenzell,

“If it’s good enough for we Swiss, why
isn’t it good enough for Americans to have your food labeled?”

About Me

Specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools, has written thirteen books - the most recent:Fundamentals of Solar Physics. Also: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions;:'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God', Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions', 'Physics Notes for Advanced Level&#39, Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space, Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and 'A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy'. It details the background to my development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.